Anticoagulation for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Matar CF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6389341 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6456347 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is no international consensus on the use of perioperative thromboprophylaxis in digital replantation. Suboptimal perioperative management may lead to replant failure, which compromises extremity function, worsens psychosocial outcomes for patients, and incurs significant cost. This systematic review evaluates and compares the efficacy and safety of perioperative antithrombotic protocols used in digital replantation.MethodsA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)--compliant prospectively registered (PROSPERO, CRD42018108695) systematic review was conducted. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched up until December 2019. Articles were assessed for eligibility in duplicate by 2 independent reviewers. All comparative studies that examined the use of perioperative thromboprophylaxis in digital replantation were eligible for inclusion.ResultsCollectively, 1,025 studies were identified of which 7 met full inclusion criteria reporting data from 635 patients (908 digital replants, 86% men, average age 37.3 years). Laceration was the most commonly reported mechanism of injury (68%), with 33% of replantation occurring in Tamai zone III. Fourteen distinct perioperative protocols were identified. One study reported significantly higher digital survival with continuous heparin infusion versus bolus heparin. Five studies demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of complications among patients treated with systemic heparin.ConclusionsThe clinical efficacy and safety of perioperative antithrombotic therapy following digital replantation remains equivocal. The perceived benefits of improved digital survival must be tempered against the adverse systemic side effects of antithrombotic and anticoagulant therapies until further prospectively collected data sets become available.
| S-EPMC7605889 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6389340 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6389337 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is uncertain whether bridging anticoagulation is necessary for patients with atrial fibrillation who need an interruption in warfarin treatment for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure. We hypothesized that forgoing bridging anticoagulation would be noninferior to bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of perioperative arterial thromboembolism and would be superior to bridging with respect to major bleeding.We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which, after perioperative interruption of warfarin therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive bridging anticoagulation therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (100 IU of dalteparin per kilogram of body weight) or matching placebo administered subcutaneously twice daily, from 3 days before the procedure until 24 hours before the procedure and then for 5 to 10 days after the procedure. Warfarin treatment was stopped 5 days before the procedure and was resumed within 24 hours after the procedure. Follow-up of patients continued for 30 days after the procedure. The primary outcomes were arterial thromboembolism (stroke, systemic embolism, or transient ischemic attack) and major bleeding.In total, 1884 patients were enrolled, with 950 assigned to receive no bridging therapy and 934 assigned to receive bridging therapy. The incidence of arterial thromboembolism was 0.4% in the no-bridging group and 0.3% in the bridging group (risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 0.8; P=0.01 for noninferiority). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.3% in the no-bridging group and 3.2% in the bridging group (relative risk, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.78; P=0.005 for superiority).In patients with atrial fibrillation who had warfarin treatment interrupted for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure, forgoing bridging anticoagulation was noninferior to perioperative bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of arterial thromboembolism and decreased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; BRIDGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00786474.).
| S-EPMC4931686 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8266509 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19-related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).ObjectiveThese evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE.MethodsASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 3 patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to March 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.ResultsThe panel agreed on 1 additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation against the use of outpatient anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who are discharged from the hospital and who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE or another indication for anticoagulation.ConclusionsThis recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality randomized controlled trials assessing the role of postdischarge thromboprophylaxis. Other key research priorities include better evidence on assessing risk of thrombosis and bleeding outcomes in patients with COVID-19 after hospital discharge.
| S-EPMC8566097 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AbstractPatients who have atrial fibrillation (AF) have increased thromboembolic risk. This risk is mitigated through use of anticoagulants, traditionally with vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin, and more recently with drugs such as Xa and thrombin inhibitors. Since anticoagulants increase the risk of bleeding, uncertainty exists regarding their use in the perioperative period. The risk of thromboembolism for each patient must be balanced against risk of bleeding; anticoagulation medication may be continued, replaced with a short-acting alternative or withheld entirely. Until recently, evidence on best management relied on expert opinion and observational studies. The recent publication of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (BRIDGE) has added important information to the knowledge base.Trial registrationBRIDGE ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00786474.
| S-EPMC4897904 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6389342 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related critical illness and acute illness are associated with a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).ObjectiveThese evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness and acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE.MethodsASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel and applied strict management strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The panel included 3 patient representatives. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 19 August 2020). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.ResultsThe panel agreed on 2 recommendations. The panel issued conditional recommendations in favor of prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation over intermediate-intensity or therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness or acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE.ConclusionsThese recommendations were based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation. They will be updated using a living recommendation approach as new evidence becomes available.
| S-EPMC7869684 | biostudies-literature